The article discusses the features of armed confl icts at the beginning of the 21st century through the prism of the theory of asymmetric confl ict. Within the framework of the theory, basic and accompanying asymmetries are distinguished, which determine the reasons for the political, rather than military, defeat of developed countries in wars against relatively weak opponents. At the beginning of the 21st century most of the armed confl icts have pronounced signs of multiple asymmetries that aff ect the course and outcome of confl icts. On the basis of the theory, several important aspects can be distinguished that should be taken into account by the military and politicians when planning and conducting military operations. Among them: the legitimacy of military operations from the point of view of international law, neutralization of anti-war sentiments, minimization of losses of military personnel, ensuring the safety of the population in the war zone. Foreign analytics is characterized by a focus on the reasons for the failures of the United States and other Western states in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Among the reasons for the failures are a lack of understanding of the culture and characteristics of the countries where hostilities are conducted, the regime of occupation, and attempts at nation-building. Some foreign experts note that the Russian Federation is much more successful in participating in asymmetric confl icts of the 21st century. Among Russian military experts, there is a noticeable interest in developing an “asymmetric war” strategy in the framework of the geopolitical confrontation with the countries of the West. The tendency to develop non-contact methods of warfare and the involvement of private military companies to neutralize anti-war sentiments and minimize losses of military personnel has a universal character. At the same time, the problem of non-selectivity of such methods of warfare and their compliance with international law is becoming more and more acute. The theory of asymmetric confl ict is a theory of international relations, which main assumptions are are useful for politicians and the military to take into account in the process of deciding on the start of hostilities and the possibility of achieving political goals by military means, and not just for fi nding victorious strategies in asymmetric confl icts.

In the 21st century, great power geopolitics is back as the Western-centric U.S. unipolar order is facing relative decline due to the challenges posed by the non-Western-centric multipolar order, specifi cally by China and Russia. In political and practical terms, geopolitics is about being able to manage and represent the nature of international relations in terms of actor relations and power dynamics. It concerns the ability of actors to make representations and interpretations of actors, events, and processes taking place in the physical realm. Informational geopolitics as an indirect and non-kinetic form of competition and confl ict has gained increasing prominence in the 21st century, where information and knowledge form the fi fth dimension of strategy. This leads to increasingly unstable international relations as the U.S. seeks to prevent other powers from growing at its expense. Hence, the critical role played by Western mainstream mass media outlets as a means of obstructive foreign policy in preserving the unipolar order through specifi c discursive practices employed in international news. Critical discourse analysis is used to analyse and interpret Western news stories on “inevitable” and “imminent” Chinese and Russian invasions. Informational geopolitics is used as a means of limiting opponent’s operational choices and opportunities in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. 

This paper looks at the securitization process that took place during M. Saakashvili’s time as President of Georgia. It argues that, in order to overshadow political misdeeds and non-democratic state-policy as a whole, M. Saakashvili and his political allies used “constructed” Russian threats to discredit and marginalize opponents. Furthermore, M Saakashvili’s regime tended to restrict freedom of speech, civil liberties and other democratic rights by referring to non-existent constructed threats from the Moscow. Through security dimension, Russia poses a menace to Georgia’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and Western aspirations. But at the time of M. Saakashvili’s presidency it has been turned into a political tool to be used against opponents. This paper off ers a scholarly debate on the issue. Finally, it gives a case-by-case analysis of the most crucial happenings that explain “how” and “why” Russia has been securitized.

The latest information and communication technologies (ICTs) are increasingly considered by nation-states as a means to project their power and promote national interests. Over the past 20 years the major militarily signifi cant powers have created the doctrinal, logistical and organizational foundations for conducting military activities in the ICT environment and some states have already openly declared the priority of off ensive cyber operations, which increases the risks of crossing “red lines” and inadvertent escalation. The current situation related to the military-political exploitation of the ICT environment predetermines the urgent need for continuous analysis of current trends in this area and the search for approaches to reduce tension, which is the goal of this article. To achieve this goal, the fi rst part of the article considers in detail relevant doctrinal and strategic documents of the United States and other key countries and identifi es certain stages and aspects of evolution of their approaches. Further, the article considers and evaluates factors that infl uence military stability in the ICT environment, taking into account the previously obtained results. It is concluded that the identifi ed factors make the task of developing international frameworks to reduce the escalation in this area uncontested. This task is of particular urgency in the context of general international instability. Analysis of the current international environment in the relevant sphere allows to conclude that international community as a whole and the major players in particular (primarily Russia and the US) are aware of the danger of unintentional escalation in the ICT environment, especially when linked to strategic stability, and are ready to take steps towards developing the framework aimed at regulation and prevention of cyber confl icts. It is very actual now in new political reality but the question mostly is about fi nding the possible format.

The article deals with the unfolding race for military, technological, and political infl uence in space. Great powers have competed in space since the dawn of the Space Age. Today we are once again faced with the possibility of space warfi ghting, but there are more than two players in the game now and civil infrastructure depends on space more than ever before. Theoretical space war threats are often analysed through an assessment of possible targets. And there are real-life challenges and threats here, including but not limited to rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO), existing destructive anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, non-destructive electronic warfare, and cyber and jamming capabilities. The greatest threat, though, comes from simple misperceptions of actions in space by diff erent actors. Space cannot be separated from dynamics on Earth, but there might be some room for space-specifi c confi dence-building, risk reduction and even arms control measures.

The period of rapid growth and development of the phenomenon, that is presently characterized as private military and security companies (PMSCs), coincided with two processes of modern history of international relations: the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the US Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Afghanistan. Concurrently, state attitude towards violence and transformation of warfare has been changing as well. Two different approaches to the history of the private security market’s rise unveil the fact that, in one way or another, the originators of the private security services were associated with the defense industry and armed forces. Non-state security actors look back on a history that stretches to mid- and the second half of the 20th century – the period of national liberation movements across the world. Meanwhile, the 1990s marked the rapid growth in the number of PMSCs and in the development and enlargement of the market in private security services. Its growth is ongoing and is gaining the interest of new states, particularly in utilizing its capacity as a political instrument. Against the backdrop of global political processes, the private security market experienced technological growth and enhancement. Both the normative regulation and the approaches of the international community to the phenomenon of PMSCs have been evolving and changing. Despite its functionality, flexibility and technological advantages, the market of private security can challenge human rights, as well as bare responsibility for corruption and improper fulfillment of contractual obligations. Nevertheless, episodes of revealed grave violations rarely reach courts, with infrequent cases of perpetrators’ sentencing. These, among problems occurring in the private security industry, require close attention by states and the international community, which has been making efforts for elaboration of the applicable normative mechanisms to regulate private military and security activity for over fifteen years.